Monday, July 14, 2014

The Yeshivah and the Academy: How We Can Learn from One Another in Biblical Scholarship

Hayyim Angel’s latest book, Peshat Isn’t so Simple,
has just been published. The Seforim Blog is happy to present this excerpt.

The Yeshivah
and the Academy:

How We Can
Learn from One Another in Biblical Scholarship

I

The study of
Tanakh is an awesome undertaking, given its infinite depth. This chapter will
explore the approaches of the yeshivah and the academy to Tanakh study. We will
define the yeshivah broadly to include any traditional religious Jewish
setting, be it the synagogue, study hall, adult education class, seminary, or
personal study. In contrast, the academy is any ostensibly neutral scholarly
setting, primarily universities and colleges, which officially is not committed
to a particular set of beliefs.

In theory, the
text analysis in the yeshivah and the academy could be identical, since both
engage in the quest for truth. The fundamental difference between the two is
that in the yeshivah, we study Tanakh as a means to understanding revelation as
the expression of God’s will. The scholarly conclusions we reach impact
directly on our lives and our religious worldview. In the academy, on the other
hand, truth is pursued as an intellectual activity for its own sake, usually as
an end in itself.

Over the
generations, Jewish commentators have interpreted the texts of Tanakh using
traditional methods and sources. Many also drew from non-traditional sources. To
illustrate, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra (twelfth-century Spain, Italy) frequently
cited Karaite scholarship even though he was engaged in an ongoing polemic
against them. Rambam (twelfth-century Spain, Egypt) drew extensively from
Aristotle and other thinkers in his Guide for the Perplexed. Rabbi Isaac
Abarbanel (fifteenth-century Spain, Italy) frequently cites Christian
commentaries and ancient histories. In the nineteenth century, rabbinic
scholars such as Samuel David Luzzatto (Shadal) and Elijah Benamozegh in Italy;
and Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel (Malbim) and David Zvi Hoffmann in Germany,
benefited significantly from academic endeavors.

Many other
rabbis, however, have opposed the use of outside sources in explicating Tanakh.[1]
These rabbis did not want assumptions incompatible with Jewish tradition
creeping into our religious worldview. This tension about whether or not to
incorporate outside wisdom into Tanakh study lies at the heart of many of the
great controversies in the history of Jewish tradition.

II

In analyzing
the respective advantages and shortcomings of the approaches of the yeshivah
and the academy, it is appropriate to pinpoint the biases of each. The yeshivah
community studies each word of Tanakh with passionate commitment to God and
humanity, and with a deep awe and reverence of tradition. These are biases
(albeit noble ones) that will affect our scholarship, and it is vital to
acknowledge them. Less favorably, it is possible for chauvinism to enter
religious thought, with an insistence that only we have the truth. Our belief
in the divine revelation of Tanakh should make us recognize that no one person,
or group of people, can fully fathom its infinite glory and depth. Finally, our
commitment to Tanakh and tradition often makes it more difficult to change our
assumptions with new information than if we were detached and studying in a
neutral setting. Thus, academic biblical scholarship gains on the one hand by
its ostensible neutrality. It may be able to see things that one in love with
tradition cannot.

However, those
professing neutrality may not always acknowledge that they too are biased.
There is no such thing as purely objective, or infallible, human thought. For
example, Julius Wellhausen, a liberal Protestant scholar of late
nineteenth-century Germany, is often considered the most important architect of
the so-called Documentary Hypothesis. Building on earlier nineteenth-century
scholarship, he asserted that different sections of the Torah were composed
over several centuries, long after the time of Moses. He argued that some of
the narratives comprise the earliest layers of the Torah. Then came the
classical prophets, and only then were most of the legal sections of the Torah
added. These strands were redacted by later scholars, he believed, into the
Torah as we know it today.

Although many
were quick to accept this hypothesis, Professor Jon D. Levenson (Harvard
University) has demonstrated that it is an expression of liberal Protestant
theology that goes far beyond the textual evidence. By arguing that later
scholars and priests added the Torah’s laws, Wellhausen and his followers were
suggesting that those later writers distorted the original religion of the
prophets and patriarchs. According to Wellhausen, then, the Torah’s laws were a
later—and dispensable—aspect of true Israelite religion. Instead of Paul’s related
accusations against the Pharisees, these liberal Protestant German scholars
dissected and reinterpreted the Torah itself in accordance with their own
beliefs.[2]

The foregoing
criticism does not invalidate all of the questions and conclusions suggested by
that school of thought. Many of their observations have proven helpful in later
biblical scholarship. We need to recognize, however, that the suggestions of
Wellhausen’s school reflect powerful underlying biases—some of which go far
beyond the textual evidence.[3]

The traditional
Jewish starting point is rather different: God revealed the Torah to Moses and
Israel as an unparalleled and revolutionary vision for Israel and for all of
humanity. Its laws and narratives mesh as integral components of a
sophisticated, exalted, unified program for life. The later prophets came to
uphold and encourage faithfulness to God and the Torah.

In Tanakh,
people who live by the Torah’s standards are praiseworthy, and people who
violate them are culpable. So, for example, the Book of Samuel extols David for
his exceptional faith in battling Goliath, and then mercilessly condemns him
for the Bathsheba affair. This viewpoint reflects the singular philosophy of
Tanakh—profoundly honest evaluation of people based on their actions. It would
be specious to argue that the first half of the narrative was written by
someone who supported David, whereas the latter account was authored by someone
who hated David. Rather, the entire narrative was written by prophets who loved
God and who demanded that even the greatest and most beloved of our leaders be
faithful to the Torah.

Of course,
truth is infinitely complex and is presented in multiple facets in Tanakh.
Additionally, our understanding is necessarily subject to the limitations of
human interpretation. Nevertheless, the text remains the standard against which
we evaluate all opinions. Religious scholarship admits (or is supposed to
admit!) its shortcomings and biases while relentlessly trying to fathom the
revealed word of God.

III

The ideal
learning framework espouses traditional beliefs and studies as a means to a
religious end, and defines issues carefully, while striving for intellectual
openness and honesty. Reaching this synthesis is difficult, since it requires
passionate commitment alongside an effort to be detached while learning in
order to refine knowledge and understanding. When extolling two of his great
rabbinic heroes—Rabbis Joseph Soloveitchik and Benzion Uziel—Rabbi Marc D.
Angel quotes the Jerusalem Talmud, which states that the path of Torah has fire
to its right and ice to its left. Followers of the Torah must attempt to walk
precisely in middle (J.T. Hagigah 2:1, 77a).[4]

Literary tools,
comparative linguistics, as well as the discovery of a wealth of ancient texts
and artifacts have contributed immensely to our understanding the rich tapestry
and complexity of biblical texts. The groundbreaking work of twentieth-century
scholars such as Umberto (Moshe David) Cassuto, Yehudah Elitzur, Yehoshua Meir
Grintz, Yehezkel Kaufmann, and Nahum Sarna has enhanced our understanding of
the biblical world by combining a mastery of Tanakh with a thorough
understanding of the ancient Near Eastern texts unearthed during the previous
two centuries.

At the same time, it must be recognized that our
knowledge of the ancient world is limited. We have uncovered but a small
fraction of the artifacts and literature of the ancient Near Eastern world, and
much of what we have discovered is subject to multiple interpretations. We
should be thrilled to gain a better sense of the biblical period, but must
approach the evidence with prudent caution as well.[5]

To benefit from
contemporary biblical scholarship properly, we first must understand our own
tradition—to have a grasp of our texts, assumptions, and the range of
traditional interpretations. This educational process points to a much larger
issue. For example, studying comparative religion should be broadening.
However, people unfamiliar with their own tradition, or who know it primarily
from non-traditional teachers or textbooks, will have little more than a
shallow basis for comparison.

Religious
scholarship benefits from contemporary findings—both information and
methodology. Outside perspectives prod us to be more critical in our own
learning. On the other side of the equation, the academy stands to benefit from
those who are heirs to thousands of years of tradition, who approach every word
of Tanakh with awe and reverence, and who care deeply about the intricate
relationship between texts.[6]
The academy also must become more aware of its own underlying biases.

IV

Ultimately, we
must recognize the strengths and weaknesses in the approaches of the yeshivah
and the academy. By doing so, we can study the eternal words of Tanakh using
the best of classical and contemporary scholarship. This process gives us an
ever-refining ability to deepen our relationship with God, the world community,
and ourselves.

Dr. Norman Lamm
has set the tone for this inquiry:

Torah is a
“Torah of truth,” and to hide from the facts is to distort that truth into
myth.… It is this kind of position which honest men, particularly honest
believers in God and Torah, must adopt at all times, and especially in our
times. Conventional dogmas, even if endowed with the authority of an
Aristotle—ancient or modern—must be tested vigorously. If they are found
wanting, we need not bother with them. But if they are found to be
substantially correct, we may not overlook them. We must then use newly
discovered truths the better to understand our Torah—the “Torah of truth.”[7]

Our early morning daily liturgy challenges us: “Ever
shall a person be God-fearing in secret as in public, with truth in his heart
as on his lips.” May we be worthy of pursuing that noble combination.

NOTES

[1] See, for example, the essays in Judaism’s
Encounter with Other Cultures: Rejection or Integration? ed. J. J. Schacter
(Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc., 1997). See also the survey of opinions in
Yehudah Levi, Torah Study: A Survey of Classic Sources on Timely Issues
(New York: Feldheim, 1990), pp. 257-274. This survey includes traditional
approaches regarding exposure to sciences, humanities, and other disciplines.

[2] Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old
Testament, and Historical Criticism (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox
Press, 1993), pp. 1-32. See also Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the
Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 1985, paperback
edition), pp. 1-4, where he shows how many prominent Christian Bible scholars
after Wellhausen continued with these Pauline doctrinal biases in the name of
“objective” scholarship.

[5] For a discussion of the broader implications of this
issue and analysis of some of the major ostensible conflicts between the
biblical text and archaeological evidence, see R. Amnon Bazak, Ad ha-Yom
ha-Zeh, pp. 247-346.

[6] Cf. the observation of William H. C. Propp:
“Generations of Bible students are taught that the goal of criticism is to find
contradiction as a first not a last resort, and to attribute every verse, nay
every word, to an author or editor. That is what we do for a living. But the
folly of harmonizing away every contradiction, every duplication, is less than
the folly of chopping the text into dozens of particles or redactional levels.
After all, the harmonizing reader may at least recreate the editors’
understanding of their product. But the atomizing reader posits and
analyzes literary materials whose existence is highly questionable” (Anchor
Bible 2A: Exodus 19-40 [New York: Doubleday, 2006], p. 734). At the
conclusion of his commentary, Propp explains that he often consulted medieval
rabbinic commentators precisely because they saw unity in the composite whole
of the Torah (p. 808). See also Michael V. Fox: “Medieval Jewish commentary has
largely been neglected in academic Bible scholarship, though a great many of
the ideas of modern commentators arose first among the medieval, and many of
their brightest insights are absent from later exegesis” (Anchor Bible 18A:
Proverbs 1-9 [New York: Doubleday, 2000], p. 12).